Editor’s Analysis: How simple do I need to make this. If you admit the debt and that it was due and you didn’t pay it, everything else is window dressing for “gimme a break.” The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had no choice but to rule against the borrower and to affirm the lower court’s ruling.

The facts stated by the court included the fact that the homeowner had refinanced by “entering into a transaction with IndyMac.” How does the Court know that transaction occurred? Because that is what the borrower said and that is the end of the discussion.

If the borrower said that there was no completed transaction with IndyMac, that any signed documents were the product of fraudulent concealment of the real lender, leaving the borrower with no real lender to hold accountable for compliance with TILA and state lending laws, and not even a lender that was authorized to issue a satisfaction of mortgage, then the Court would not have said that the borrower entered into a transaction with IndyMac. Instead it would have said that the facts were in dispute as to whether the Plaintiff’s loan was the result of a transaction with IndyMac or some other entity.

The court also recites that Plaintiff failed to make a payment due. Where did they get that fact? From the borrower’s tacit or explicit admission. If the Plaintiff said that there was no payment due and that just because an instrument calls for a payment is not ipso facto proof that the payment is due. It might have been paid by someone else or it might not have been due at all because there never was a deal between Plaintiff and IndyMac and its successors.

After dealing with those admissions, the court basically concluded that the other errors, fabrications and even forgeries of the banks and servicers were not particularly important. What was the harm. The borrower’s right to due process doesn’t mean that he can admit the debt, admit the default, admit the collateral, admit the note and then say he should nonetheless win.

You must remember that due process does not mean the same thing as “justice.” It means an opportunity to be heard. And this Plaintiff was heard to complain about illegal activity of the foreclosing party on a debt that the Plaintiff admitted was owed and secured by the house and on which he hadn’t paid.

Once again, the Court recites that its opinion is based upon the facts as plead.

Plaintiff Borrower failed to state sufficient facts to support claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title or fraud. Nor could Plaintiff maintain an action for declaratory judgment because the events had already occurred causing the material rights to accrue.

Procedural context:

An action was commenced in state court, then removed to federal court in the Northern District of Georgia. The District Court granted motions to dismiss by the Defendants on several grounds and determined that amendment of the complaint would be futile. On review, the Court of Appeals affirms the District Court.

Facts:

Plaintiff refinanced debt secured by his home in 2005. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he had defaulted on the loan, that the security deed he signed was assigned through the defendants and that one of the defendants had initiated foreclosure against his home. Plaintiff did not present sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure – duty, breach, cause, or damages. Nor could Plaintiff prevail on his action for quiet title because he stated in his complaint that he had signed over legal title in the security deed but no facts that the assignee’s title was fatally defective. His claim for fraud was not supported by factual allegations identifying with particularity the materially false representation nor valid grounds for concealing material information. Declaratory judgment was unavailable because Plaintiff had already defaulted on the note. Finally, Plaintiff failed to provide a factual or legal basis for his argument that foreclosure was improper because the defendants “separated the pertinent note and security deed in the process of engaging in the ‘illegal scheme of securitization of residential mortgages’ — leaving the note unsecured and the security deed unenforceable — and because certain of the assignments of the pertinent security deed were fraudulent or ‘doctored'”.

65 Responses

To all, there is a way to stop judicial or non-judicial foreclosure ( i.e. cancel the mortgage or deed of trust) in any state. However, in order to truly understand how to do it, one must first have a general understanding of the following:

Once understood, one will come to the conclusion that the home owner is not a maker of a note within the meaning of UCC § 3-412, therefore it is non-negotiable and it does not evidence a promise to pay a monetary obligation within the meaning of UCC § 9-102(a) (65), so it’s totally unenforceable.

Call us. We have put together the ONLY WINS in the State of Michigan (others were shot down by the Court)… We have ZERO dissatisfied Clients… We work with the best Foreclosure Attorneys in the country… We work in all States except: AZ, NV, MN and VA (based on State Judiciaries’ past ruling/positions in/re to foreclosures)… We work with you (the Home Owner) every step of the way, for the full duration of the process. Now, the ONLY thing left for us, is to help SAVE YOUR HOME… Give us a call or shoot us an email for a free consultation.

@JG I think the only way to reconcile art 9 and art 3 is to treat art 9 as passing interests of holders —–rights against the debtor–maker—-but art 3 is there for the protection of the maker—–certainly collectors treat it that way–they also state in pleadings that art 9 only affects priorities among the holders—-that art 9 offers nothing to a maker —-they state this as a defense to arguments that they have no standing if the art 9 rule is ignored—by elimination–they must then meet art 3 —however art 3 can be waived by maker–or actually it is usually waived because people think they have recourse back against the bank that is nominal party in interest–except when you sue the trust bank–it seeks an mtd to be dropped from the suit “for itself”—it is only there same as MERS—nominee—–mere placeholder—the trust is supposed to be an entity in itself——-they want it both ways–to use the name to intimidate–but have no liability for misuse of the intimidating effect

But I still don’t know, since pretty sure security interest holder can’t enforce against maker, what is their point of all that? What is the point of trying to show that there was compliance with art 9-203(b) when doing so only finds the trusts with security interests, enforceable only against the indenture party, not the note maker, and not what the guys with the money thought they were buying?

: § 9-203. (as of 2010) ATTACHMENT AND ENFORCEABILITY OF SECURITY INTEREST; PROCEEDS; SUPPORTING OBLIGATIONS; FORMAL REQUISITES.
(a) [Attachment.]
A security interest attaches to collateral when it becomes enforceable against the debtor with respect to the collateral, unless an agreement expressly postpones the time of attachment.

(b) [Enforceability.]
Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c) through (i), a security interest is enforceable against the debtor and third* parties with respect to the collateral only if :
jg: * for the purpose of (b), I don’t take third party as a ref to a note maker, rather the debtor’s other creditors

(1) value has been given;

(2) the debtor has rights in the collateral or the power to transfer rights in the collateral to a secured party; and

(3) ONE of the following conditions is met:

(A) the debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral and, if the security interest covers timber to be cut, a description of the land concerned;

(B) the collateral is not a certificated security and is in the possession of the secured party under Section 9-313 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement;

jg: huh?

(C) the collateral is a certificated security in registered form and the security certificate has been delivered to the secured party under Section 8-301 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement; or

jg: big huh?

(D) the collateral is deposit accounts, electronic chattel paper, investment property, or letter-of-credit rights, and the secured party has CONTROL under Section 9-104, 9-105, 9-106, or 9-107 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement.

A person becomes bound as debtor by a security agreement entered into by another person IF, by operation of law other than this article or by contract:

(1) the security agreement becomes effective to create a security interest in the person’s property; or

jg: how so?

(2) the person becomes generally obligated for the obligations of the other person, including the obligation secured under the security agreement, and acquires or succeeds to all or substantially all of the assets of the other person.

jg: not this one

(e) [Effect of new debtor becoming bound.]

If a new debtor becomes bound as debtor by a security agreement entered into by another person:

(1) the agreement satisfies subsection (b)(3) with respect to existing or after-acquired property of the new debtor TO THE EXTENT the property is described in the agreement; and

2) another agreement is not necessary to make a security interest in the property enforceable.

jg: hmmmmm….

(f) [Proceeds and supporting obligations.]

The attachment of a security interest in collateral gives the secured party the rights to proceeds provided by Section 9-315 and is also attachment of a security interest in a supporting obligation for the collateral.

(g) [Lien securing right to payment.]

The attachment of a security interest in a right to payment or performance SECURED BY A security interest or other LIEN on personal or REAL property is also attachment of a security interest in the security interest, MORTGAGE or other lien.

So, if I got this right (g), a security interest in the right to payment
(note) creates a security interest in the “mortgage”, also. But still, does a security interest in the note provide an avenue for enforcement against the notemaker without at least barrelling thru
the ‘original’ debtor first? Not to mention that securitization does not contemplate contingent rights. The right to go after the homeowner
by one with a perfected security interest may exist – I don’t know, didn’t think so one bit til I got to (g) – but if it does, it’s premised on a condition subsequent – the debtor’s default, and we’re not talking about business as usual between 2 companies – we’re talking about securitization, trusts, and another set of laws.

Someone commented that the UCC is antiquated. I think he or she was right. In the meantime, I don’t think securitization allows for rights excercizeable on conditions subsequent. I’m just throwing out stuff for evaluation /discussion or as e.tolle says, thinking out loud. What is a “new debtor”, for instance? Got me. And in the first place, it was just hard for me to ignore what I think was being said by the ASF in its attempt to grab Art 9 and contractual compliance by alleged perfected security interests, which I took as a big pile of mullarkey.

@dcb, NG, anyone – yes , I understand the “protective” distinction dcb makes re: art 3 v 9, now that he explained it. Had to read it twice, though! But I can’t agree it only makes sense if the dot follows note. Well, actually I do get his point, but I didn’t enact the legislation which says interests in real property require a writing. The purpose is to prevent fraud when it comes to real prop because r.p. is unique, for one thing: The S of F regulates the single largest asset/investment most people will ever make. The S of F is why even tho some states may not (jury – mine – not in yet; I haven’t searched all states for their versions of S of F) require recordation for an assgt to be effective, a writing is nonetheless required to transfer an interest in real estate. Plus, since notes aren’t recorded, their transfers impart no notice.

And (dcb) according to the material I linked from ASF, a transfer of possession is not an essential element of a perfected security interest. That’s, in fact, imo what they are trying to get around with the psi business: the non-delivery of the notes.
From the material:
“Before a buyer’s “security interest” in a mortgage note can be perfected under Article 9, the security interest must attach. A security interest attaches when 1) value has been given for the sale, 2) the seller has rights in the mortgage note OR (weird, troublesome – sic) or the power to transfer rights in the mortgage note to the buyer, and 3) either (a) the mortgage note is in the possession of the buyer pursuant to a security agreement of the seller OR (b) the seller has signed a written or (drum roll, and add one for my case about electronic commerce) electronic security agreement which describes the mortgage note. See UCC 9-203(b).”

I can’t say, just like many here, what all has gone on with notes, but it seems to me (and we know I trip and stumble on this stuff, not to mention the headache) that the material issued by the American Sec’n Forum is just more double-speak. They say the notes are sold, but they go to great trouble to defend the perfection of “security interests”, something ELSE. I have to read the entire article at the gslaw link above to see if I can put “buyer” in the same sentence with “security interest”. Oh my gosh. In the material, the ASF has added the words at no. “1)” above “for the sale”. Those rats! The actual reading of 9-203(b) is, as to no. 1, “when value has been given” – period. There is no “for the SALE”. Therefore, the logical reading of the 1st condition for a security interest is NOT value for a stinking ‘sale’ – it’s value for just that – a ‘security interest’. I’d like to know to whom this material was directed, because to me it stinks to you know where. It does never end, does it? It’s just like another stinking white paper I had instructing banksters on their stories for foreclosure and courts which disappeared.

But I’m still confused… THEY must acknowledge/know the notes weren’t delivered (and maybe they were never to be sales as some of us have suspected) and this is their justification for actually I don’t know what since I don’t know YET if one with a security interest (only) may enforce the note. Best I can tell, what might – max- exist are security interests in the notes. I don’t think security holders may enforce a note against its maker, certainly not without rights of subrogation or whatever that would be called relevant thereto.
If the trust only holds security interests (and that’s even a damn big if), it canNOT be vested at this date with other rights, first of all because of trust law. The trust just can’t obtain new rights
or interests past the cut off date. If these trusts weren’t governed by this particular trust law, they probably could, by assgt of the right or interest. But they are, and that makes all the difference. I’m trying to make a distinction: if the trusts only hold security interests, the assets (rights and interests) of the trust can’t be altered at this date. As relevant here, trusts cannot accept new interests or rights of enforcement against the makers of notes. As security interest holders, the trust’s debtor is the indentured party, the guy they gave their dough to for the sec interest. If the trusts only have security interests in the notes, because they may not accept new rights or interests, they can’t obtain the right by any mechanism, including Article 3 bearer provisions, to enforce the notes against the makers.
I’m really rattled by this charade. Now would be good time for anyone to be kind and explain any misunderstanding of mine.

How long do you sucubuses think you can keep up the charade….? The truth is the crap the FED sold to all of us was supposed to fail……The FED is in default…….and they know there is no legal correction for this. They owe a quadrillion in fraud……they never intended to pay out of their pockets….. They want to steal as much as they can before they blow themselves up again……or the U.S. GOVT sues them out of their insolvent balance sheets….or audits them….which ever comes first. The FED investors are deadbeats……this was all about the theft of our wealth & therefore our freedom.. This is how radicals operate and their weapons are secrets, lies & deceit to defraud. The FED investors are the true face of evil hidden behind many proxies who are in plain sight.

I had another family meet with me this evening to review their docs and title to find out why they can not refi after having the loan since 2007 (key). 700+ credit scores… No defauts, mods or refis. Wells Fargo N.A. on Note and Mortgage (not Mers). Nobody will refi it for them and they had appraisal and they are not underwater. WHY? WHY? Could It Be it was REO inhouse FC Theft…… and Another Banker Special Financing? Sure It Is!

@JG….RE: date of his orig loan? Yep…. Yep…. The date and with Whom? Mark of the Beast? In what State? Is it already a buyback with a clouded title? Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie …. having problem insureing bad titles with lots of unsatisfied liens. Those defaulted prior to 12 good payment history?

On the other hand, there’s a HUD approved non-profit org that’s been around a long time, which last I knew was totally legitimate. The name is Consumer Credit Counseling Service. I think it’s a United Way outfit and I also think they’re still around. (don’t get fooled by companies with similar names) It’s my understanding they negotiate reduced payoffs (consumer debt, not homes) for you and you make your payments to them. The amts are probably determined by your income if not assets. Try to find out before filling out their paperwork. I would think they would be forthcoming about the small print, like if you renig on the deal. Ask first. I don’t remember how this impacts one’s credit rating. They must know. This seems like a good alternative for those who don’t want to file bk. The credit card payment reduction might help people make their house payments if that’s their choice.
I really think it’s a good idea for people to tender offers for loan
reductions (rate and principal) to loan owners c/o the servicers, specifically without admission (ask attorney). Include a request (demand?) that your offer be forwarded and considered by the real party in interest. HAMP etc. does not preclude other solutuions, tho they will try to pretend it is. They will say it’s the exclusive legally prescribed method for modification. HAMP is one avenue, but it isn’t exclusive imo because, if for no other reason, one is not and cannot be compelled to participate in an act which socializes the (alleged) loss. I don’t know how such an offer could hurt (all they can do is say no or ignore you, right?), and in fact, you may be able to allege “failure to mitigate” (lay opinion like everything I say) as an aff defense -fwiw- if the s hits the fan. Probably best to have an attorney who understands real estate law etc. draw it up. Shouldn’t cost that much. And maybe when it’s ignored or allegedly rejected,
one could demand (suit? – ask lawyer) evidence 1) it was submitted to rpii or 2) any party not the rpii claiming authority to accept or reject
actually had that expressed authority. Evidence – what a concept.
Our ability to negotiate a work out or compromise shouldn’t be stymied by third party conflicts of interest. Or maybe the sky will part and it will get accepted. It could happen.
A friend of mine recently tried to get an fha “streamline” refinance and was turned down because of the date of his orig loan, about which I’m puzzled. An fha streamline is (or was) a refi of an existing fha loan.
All that was needed, as I recall, is a good 12 mo. payment history of the existing fha loan, and with not much further ado, one could get a rate reduction for the remainder of the loan. Anybody know what has happend to these streamline refi’s? Maybe stinking sec’n messed them up.

The FED cashed the checks & their investors pocketed our money…..& never paid back their original loan back to the Treasury…that is what their hiding…THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…..Therefore, any subsequent transfers or sales to investors were criminal……the FED were counterfeiting for their investors….and pocketing all of the money from both sides …. the investors they sold the crap to & the property owners side……ALL PAID FOR UPFRONT BY THE U.S. TAXPAYERS…..! The only skin they had the game were their own fraudulent investments……! The reason the banksters haven’t gone to prison is they were following orders from their investors at the FED..MAZILLO…DIMON…BLANKFEIN…DIMON….THE CEO FROM CITI…WERE WELL PAID PERPS FOR THE FED INVESTORS…THEY WERE MERE PEONS IN THE BIG SCHEME…..

The real question is…..WHERE ARE OUR ORIGINAL BLUE INK NOTES & MORTGAGES………?? THE FED DOES NOT HAVE THEM BECAUSE THE FED INVESTORS DEFAULTED ON THEIR MORTGAGES…….THEY TOOK OUR MONEY & RAN….! THEREFORE….WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND OUR SATISFACTIONS……!

“…The notes were never transferred to the Depositor and in most cases the certs or practically every tranche senior – down to RA and OC tranche are bought by the underwriter, who sold them for the second time in a principal capacity.

The default of the pool is intentional to claim a default by the Master Sericer to the Trustee,so the MS can buy the loans for notional amount, not UPB. If you don’t think the N.A.s own the notes, just wait until after the elections…”

ANON said:

“…First, “certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself.

The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor.

According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid.

There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.

Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans).

The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding.

These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders.

Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account.

The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.

Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default.

Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default.

However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone.

That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights.

This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.”

AUTHOR STATES; “due process does not mean the same thing as “justice.” It means an opportunity to be heard.”

This is commonly accepted, however it is not entirely accurate. Due process comes in two forms: one is procedural due process–the right to have a fair hearing–eg not a knock on the door at noon to tell you a hearing is going to occur in 15 minutes if you can hurry to courthouse to be heard–or else waived. So fairness does come into play–the civil rules are aimed at protecting the fairness.

there is also substantive due process—–fundamental fairness etc

This comes into play in connection with jurisdiction: and other things: Is it appropriate to burn a witch for casting spells—after a hearing. Is it appropriate to levy a tax upon a person for road construction if the person never uses roads–eg no license. Many fundamental civil rights are created and protected under the more amorphous substantive due process. The one that ARGUABLY comes into play in connection with foreclosures and collections relates to the economic and mental effects of exposure to dual collection on a note. More specifically, under UCC Art 3 if a person in physical possession of the original promissory note presents that instrument to the maker-promissor, that maker is liable to the presenter for payment–unless the presenter is aware of fraud in the inducement etc.[ie the brother of the con-man that induced the maker to give a note for say $1 million to purchase a fake Rembrandt.

Thus, when some claimant ambles up to the courthouse and files a complaint alleging the claimant is “holder” of that note—he must show an Art 9 schedule having been filed that shows his interest in the note-to survive an MTD raised by the maker–and/or he must actually present the original note before a motion for summary judment can be granted–if it was properly defended. If the claimant is able to get by without presenting and surrendering the original note [or otherwise protecting the maker from a 2nd claimant under UCC 3-309], ie the claimant pulled off a complete bluff—then the maker may have to pay a REAL holder w/ a REAL note all over again. That violates fundamental fairness and underlines the entire standing concept—–the UCC Art 3-309 rules—etc.

Thus the true purpose of all of the rules re foreclosure defense is actually to prevent denial of substantive due process—ie that the maker having once satisfied a debt is thereafter ree of it. Today we often give short shrift to the significance of this—implicitly assuming that if the note is paid to the wrong person–bankruptcy allows an escape–or the 1st claimant must cover the loss–etc. But in fact these were not presumed in the old days–and were not necessarily available options. There is no natural right to bankruptcy–and in fact it is being whittled away. And chances of recovering from a determined frauder are slim. Thus substantive due process demands procedural due process opportunities to avoid exposure to double payment of debts–and the impairment on ones peace of mind—aka pursuit of happiness that goes with the exposure.

Too often pro-se attorneys even courts seem to miss the purpose of the RCP 17, standing etc——of UCC Art 3-301, 309 etc —-they do not equate these protections to any significant right–certainly not a civil right of significance—-but the underlying purpose of the entire process is to prevent deprivation of protection against double ecovery.

@ John Gault, it was just being used as an example, I did not have a loan with Hudson, and yes I know for a fact thet Fannie and Chase had loan purchase agreements like every other (alleged) Trust agency / private.

Fannie and Freddie operate as a corporate and GSE (quasi governmental) agency. Corporate side / trust side, just like all other GSE’s FRC, FHLB, FDIC, PGTC.

The GSE came out with Desktop Originator and Desktop Underwriting technology specifically to be able to gauge pipeline flow so they knew how to construct the pools, well in advance of folks applying for loans. After Glass Steagal it only took them three years to consolidate the other needed companies for the N.A.s to begin this takeover.

Carie is right, note and mortgage not conveyed to issuer of trust, but the depositor can tell yopu exactly where the notes went.

Carie, after further review I admit it – You are right and I am wrong – I pulled out my old loans docs from the closing and it turns out I did not sign a Note. It clearly said I was signing something else instead of a Note. It said I was signing an “Adjustable/Fixed Rate Ham Sandwich” evidence by a mortgage – I mean a side of German Potato Salad.

It was an honest mistake and I will simply tell the Judge next wseek not to foreclose because I thought I was having lunch at the closing table and for desert they threw the house in for free!!!

What we all need to focus on is…… THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…….THE FACT THESE SODOMITE FED INVESTORS NEVER PAID THE TREASURY BACK ……….BECAUSE WHAT THEY WANTED TO CREATE ALL ALONG IS COMPLETE COMMUNISM…..These perverted FED Investors & all of their methods of perversion of all of their insolvent debt fraud is how these COMMUNISTS want to create COMPLETE COMMUNISM. THEY WANT TO RENDER ALL OF US THEIR OWN HUMAN ATM MACHINES…

Yves & Paulie are trying to protect their own asses….they blame the banksters for what the FED INVESTORS DID TO THEM…BILL BLACK KNOWS ITS ALL A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED CROCK….HE IS TOO NICE TO THE SODOMITES……HE SHOULD REALLY LET THEM HAVE IT….HE KNOWS WHAT EVIL WITCHES THEY ALL ARE……WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING IS……TO INSTALL COMPLETE COMMUNISM….& HE KNOWS THEIR METHOD TO FRAUDULENTLY INDUCE THAT IS RE-SOCIALISM OF THE MASSIVE INSOLVENT DEBT OF THIS WITCH COVEN…

WANT TO CUT A RUG WITH ME ENRAGED…..? BECAUSE I KNOW THE TRUTH IS…….COMMUNIST IMPOSTERS HAVE HIJACKED THE COUNTRY…..UNDER MANY GUISES………….and THAT IS WHAT the IMPOSTERS HIDING WITHIN THIS GOVERNMENT ARE TRYING TO HIDE & THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE THE FACT NONE OF THESE CONTRACTS WITH ANY OF THESE HIDDEN COMMUNISTS EVER EXISTED…..WE DONT OWE ANY OF THESE COMMIE FOREIGN & DOMESTIC INVESTORS JACK SHIT BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…..& THEY DON’T OWN JACK SHIT & THEY NEVER DID……AND HIDING THAT IS TREASON…..THEREFORE….YOU ARE A TRAITOR….! YOU SHOULD GO GET A JOB FOR THE COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK….ANDERSON POOPER WOULD NO DOUBT FIND A PLACE FOR YOU BETWEEN HIMSELF & CFR CLANWOMAN ERIN BURNETT…!

And by the way… David E. Martin (Coup d’Twelve) in his blog was marveling at the fact that no one, and he means no one, in the “economic” circles, from Yves Smith to Paul Krugman, Bill Black or others, has even found it necessary to mention, even just in passing, that Yuan/Yen trade agreement… as though it was soooo inconsequential as to not deserve it.

I found it extremely important and mentioned it here. Not a hint of any reaction from anyone other than yourself!

“It is common knowledge that Russia approached China and Brazil about massive dumping of US debt (coordinated). Brazil would not go along and China was not hedged accordingly. That is why they bailed out AIG, counter party default meant many a broke chinaman,and unhappy investment bankers who would have been indicted or the fraud. This is a alot bigger that a couple of your theory’s, which are close – but still miss the mark. P.S. a synthetic swap is a derivative contract.”

Have you noticed that this site keeps focused on the very, very small picture and has absolutely no use for the monumental upheaval going on worldwide? No one gives a hoot about IMF forgiving debt left and right (Asia, Africa, Ireland, South America now, Europe, etc.), still under the terribly misguided impression that America is it! Despite BRIC having become BRICS in the last year and BRIICS in the last couple of months, Japan and China trading outside of the dollar, BRICS having taken a much bigger stake in IMF, etc.

It’s happening right underneath their nose and all they can do is scream “communists!”, “lawyers and judges are all corrupt!” and such nonsense.

And let’s not forget Monsanto and big pharma being sued to the tune of billions the world over…

“Your friend needs to unfocus on the MBS which is a trading sham, and stay focused on where the notes went after the closing transaction took place.” Funny that you’d say that. Anonymous and I have been discussing that very point for months now. So, among the people who harp on that, one has been fighting non stop for 10 years in federal court and the other simply… walked away without even attempting the true and tried defenses.

And in the end, what makes or breaks a case is not those arguments (otherwise, Anon would have prevailed long ago) but the most down to earth defenses: venue, standing, produce the original documents and show me where the money came from. All the rest is for Bill Black and SEC regulators to sort out.

HUDSON SOLD TO CHASE….? HA….! THEY NEVER SOLD ANYTHING….BUT ALOT OF FRAUD….WHAT THEY REALLY DID WAS PASS AROUND THEIR FRAUD …..THEY SWAPPED THE FAKE LOANS & OVERSOLD INVESTMENTS IN NOTHING OF VALUE….THAT IS HOW THEY CREATED $800 TRILLION IN JUNK BONDS THEY HANDED WE THE PEOPLE ON THEIR PLATTER OF ALCHEMY……..THEY ARE WITCHES & ALCHEMISTS…USING COVET MEANS …..WITCHCRAFT TO ROB US INTO FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED PERDITION…

Enraged–exactly! I think the denial strategy is great in theory, but I think the vast majority of judges would not tolerate the strategy and go ahead and make sure that the homeowner loses no matter what, which is the hymnal almost all the judges are singing from.

They dumped their fraud on the U.S. TAXPAYERS when MERS DUMPED THEIR FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC….The GSES were nationalized to the FED…..A PRIVATE BANK….THAT CRIMINAL ACT OF TREASON ALLOWED THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK VIA PROXY OF THE GSES…..TO HAVE A DIRECT PIPELINE TO THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT…..THANK THE FDIC…. THEY ALLOWED THIS WITH NO AUDITS OF THE SO CALLED TBTF………THE FDIC ARE IMPOSTERS…..!

@iwantmynpv – what makes you think the ms can buy the loan for a
“notional amt”? Really, I’d like to know if possible. If nothing else, that’s a monstrous conflict of interest. (I’m the servicer – I’ll just default it and buy it for a pittance) The fnma perspectus says fnma must repurchase at the balance of the note. All this stuff, the variations, is pretty confusing, at least to me.

iwantmynpv – your loan with Hudson was 99.99% sold to Chase before it closed. Chase, a FNMA seller/servicer, aggregated loans and sold them to FNMA (that was the end of the line until WS devised and sold sec’n) FNMA securitized your loan, whatever the heck that actually means. When you allegedly defaulted, in order to 1) discontinue FNMA’s guarantee to the trust investors (see FNMA prospectus) or 2) “modify” the loan (see FNMA rules at its website), the loan (or whatever was sold by FNMA – rights to payments?) had to be repurchased. FNMA may have in turn hit Chase with a contractual repurchase, and if so, that might explain how a mod was tendered to you showing Chase as the lender. Chase would very likely have, btw, sold the loan to FNMA servicing-retained and also remained the servicer or master-servicer when fnma sold whatever it sold to the investors. At the time when you were told FNMA owned the loan, FNMA might have if FNMA had completed its repurchase from investors but not yet compelled Chase to repurchase from FNMA. It’s possible!
I wonder if Chase turned in a claim for some default insurance and tried to get your autograph, anyway. Everything I’ve said is speculation, of course; it’s my take on how it could have been based on what you said. Here’s why I don’t think Chase always owned the loan: because you were told at one time that the loan was owned by FNMA, and everyone who could dumped their loans on one of the GSE’s. Chase would not have kept it on its books – they would’ve sold it, and prob to FNMA. If your loan were a conventional, conforming one, it prob did go thru FNMA.

“…M. Soliman refuses to trace back to loans PRIOR to the foreclosure “loan” in question. He has not done his homework. I do not dispute some of his comments — if, and only if, the “current loan” was the only loan in question. This is NOT the case. M. Soliman needs to go back — go back — go back (to PRIORS)…”

Hi Carie, your friend Anon is wrong. Read a final HAMP mod – after months of claiming they FREDDIE or FANNIE owns the loan – just read where it states your lender id XXXXXXX National Association. The notes were never transferred to the Depositor and in most cases the certs or practically eery tranche senior – down to RA and OC tranche are bought by the underwriter, who sold them for the second time in a principal capacity.

The default of the pool is intentional to claim a default by the Master Sericer to the Trustee,so the MS can buy the loans for notional amount, not UPB. If you don’t think the N.A.s own the notes, just wait until after the elections.

One last example. I get a loan through Hudson Savings, one month later it is being serviced by Chase Home Mortgage. I find out later it is owned by Fannie Mae. Now we know Hudson doesn’t have a Participation Agreement with Fannie, and Fannie says they own the loan.

I go late and try to modify with Fannie through Chase Home Mortgage, (loan Servicer for Hudson and now Fannie). After 18 months of Jamie Dimon and Fannie collecting on interest rate swaps – Chase tells me Fannie approved a trial period. I pay trial period for 4 months and get my final HAMP mod to sign. Why does it say the lender is Chase Bank, N.A. – Is it because some horseshit story of how the note and mortgage for the guy who sold me the home was never paid off by my original lender Hudson. It was paid off and the guy who sold me the house received his mortgage satisfaction and the Note rom his lender stamped paid in full.

Now, what i think your friend ANON is trying to say is that when they default a pool the loans are stuck into other pools including the grantor trust which sits inside the supplemental prospectus. These are not notes that are being bounce and resold as synthetics over and over. They are MBS which are taking the long route to the FRC who is placing them into Trust that are not een registered with the SEC and they are claiming ownership through quiet little LLC’s like Sutton Place, Park Place, Maiden Lane III etc. You know it is FRC owned when the best they can do or originality is to name the LLC for the street in front of the ofice in which they steal.

Your friend needs to unfocus on the MBS which is a trading sham, and stay focused on where the notes went after the clsing transaction took place. Forget the mortgage, it was neer meant to be a secured debt, becuae they neer intended to disclose the Trustees, Master Servicer, Aggregator, or any other parties in the aisle.

The loans are carried on the balance sheet as held to maturity or fee assets / collection accounts inside of the Master Trust of the N.A., cash flow accrues as something other than loan proceeds in every case.

The worst part is they used the SP to avoid taxes, tier one requirements by claiming the loans were insured, and your government, FDIC, FHLB, FRC, SEC, OCC and the former OTS were, and are all in on it. Try to tell the chinese we are not paying fannie and freddie MBS and see how fast the Treasury yield on the 10 year hits six percent. Even at 60 billion a month in treasuries and 40 billion a month in MBS, the FRC could not absorb the BRIC selling of treasuries.

It is common knowledge that Russia approached China and Brazil about massive dumping of US debt (coordinated). Brazil would not go along and China was not hedged accordingly. That is why they bailed out AIG, counter party default meant many a broke chinaman,and unhappy investment bankers who would have been indicted or the fraud. This is a alot bigger that a couple of your theory’s, which are close – but still miss the mark. P.S. a synthetic swap is a derivative contract.

Cheerio mates, let’s all pay homage to the queen and the bank of settlements.

On another thread you had asked me to ask my friend ANON regarding this—I don’t know if you ever saw her response:

“…The notes are not NEW notes, the notes are not notes at all, HARP/HAMP tries to get borrowers to sign to modify the debt — as if it was a valid mortgage with a valid note.

HARP/HAMP is a continuation of the Fraud — not the original source.

The subprime refinances (and new purchases) were already modifications of default debt — but, no one was ever told.

HARP/HAMP just allows borrowers to modify the default debt — AGAIN.

Refer to the TARP Oversight Panel November 2010 report — footnote 35 — “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

Mortgages were not validly discharged/cancelled by a subprime refinance.

The mortgage, as GSE charge-off, remains with the subprime refinance only serving as modification to the (false) default debt.

Were the subprime refinances presented as a valid mortgage to the borrowers??? YES.

But, this was FALSE and fraudulent.

They were NOT valid mortgages, as the mortgage remained intact — only by servicer advance —not by the borrower refinance.

And, the servicer “modifies” the original “note”, by the subprime refinance, on behalf of an unidentified creditor/”investor” – mortgage remains.

Borrower remains in default status with GSE.

Does a valid UCC negotiable note exist by
the subprime refinance??

NO.

Of course not, the prior mortgage was never validly discharged, and although the servicer advances, the borrower is NOT recorded as paying.

In effect, the actual borrower on the subprime refinance is —- THE SERVICER — (on behalf of the actual JUNK debt buyer creditor/”Investor”).

HARP/HAMP just continues to “modify” the false default — HAH — if you are LUCKY (not really LUCKY).

Possibly not even referred to at all. And, certainly not filed as viewable with the SEC. .

Correspondent brokers and bankers, YES, made a bundle on the deals — irrelevant to the borrower — except they paid for in the form of higher interest rates on the modified JUNK debt — called a subprime refinance. .

All subprime loans (falsely called refinances) were sold to one of the big banks.

Only the big banks had contracts with GSEs.

The banks then securitized (passed-through cash flows — that is all securitization is) — to security investors.

The very structure of the REMIC subprime was to provide credit enhancement to generate AAA ratings.

But, the Prospectus said otherwise, the Prospectus clearly states how the certificates to “risky” loan contained in the REMIC are sold TO THE SECURITY UNDERWRITERS — who do NOT report financial statements to the IRS — their parent corporation does.

Further, securitization must involve removable of receivables from the corporation’s balance sheet.

By transferring the pass-through to off-balance sheets, the corporation was able to avoid reporting that the loans they “securitized” were not actually loans with valid receivables, in fact, they were COLLECTION RIGHTS to DEFAULT DEBT, by which the corporation could only report the cash received as income — not receivables.

Among other things, he used the phrase “not optimal” when responding to Jon Stewart’s questioning about how the tragedy in Libya was handled, and I don’t care about this so-called issue at all.

What I do care about is how the president answered a question about HAMP, and I care because of the way he answered it. I’ll get right to the point… here’s what he said…

Stewart: But don’t you have a HAMP program? Wasn’t there $50 billion set aside for HAMP and only five and a half billion dollars used.

Obama: Actually, what’s happened is we got 5 million homes where we’ve seen foreclosures prevented. We have a settlement with the banks that provides another $25 billion to help the housing market. But the central question is that there are a whole bunch of things we can do right now that will make the recovery even stronger…

Okay, that’s enough.

Mr. President… may I have a word with you?

I’m really worried about you, sir. What I mean is… you just answered that question about HAMP like some politician appearing on Fox News might have answered it, do you realize that, sir?

Jon Stewart asked you about why you didn’t spend so much of the money available for HAMP… on HAMP… or on other efforts to mitigate the damage being caused by the foreclosure crisis. And you knew what he had asked, Mr. President, because your answer was like a text book example of obfuscation.

You also knew that the original budget for HAMP was not $50 billion, but $75 billion, right sir? And that the real reason that you didn’t spend more than was spent is because you had no idea what to spend it on, isn’t that also right, Mr. President?

Because you tried to introduce a whole slew of programs over the last three years that would have resulted in the spending of some of that money, but every single one of those programs failed so spectacularly that you couldn’t even figure out how to spend any money on them, aren’t I also right about that, sir?

I know I’m right about all of this, Mr. President. I was paying very close attention as the whole mess was unfolding, so I remember all of it, sir. And I’m not the only one who does, Mr. President. There are others that remember too.

Mr. President, it pains me to see you feel as if you have to obfuscate when asked a question about something like that, because you don’t. Or at least you wouldn’t feel as if you have to if your administration would just tell the truth about what went on since 2009, sir.

Larry Summers says no one should ever admit they were wrong in politics, or in the White House. I read about his views on this topic in Ron Suskind’s book, “Confidence Men.”

Were talking about LPS. The inventor of robo-signing and institutionalized fraudulent foreclosure. Why would anyone listen to them and why, Oh why, would anyone print their numbers…?

LPS Data Shows Ups and Downs of the Foreclosure Crisis

You may have heard me say this before, but nothing goes down in a straight line. That’s why you really should just ignore the undulating headlines that continually pepper the papers from coast-to-coast. Trying to follow them will unquestionably cause motion sickness and bouts of extreme annoyance.

Well, to illustrate these ups and downs that always seem to land more to the downside than the up, it’s helpful to look at the results posted by Lender Processing Services (“LPS”) who maintains a loan level database that is said to cover 70 percent of the market.

And away we go…

In September, LPS’s delinquency rate was 7.4 percent, which was a 7.72 percent increase over August. The company defines its “delinquency rate” as reporting 30 days or more past due, but not yet in foreclosure.

In 2012, the rate went up in April, May and June, before declining in July and August, so now it’s up again in September. So, since last April, the LPS scoreboard says: UP-3 months… DOWN-2 months… and then UP-1 month.

LPS also reports that as of September, 3.7 million loans were at least 30 days delinquent, but not yet in foreclosure…. and 1.53 million loans were at least 90 days delinquent, but not yet in foreclosure. Almost two million loans… 1.94 million to be more precise… were actually in foreclosure.

And if you don’t mind getting a little dizzy, as of September, LPS reports that there are 5.64 million properties 30 days or more delinquent, OR in foreclosure.

I’ve been reporting 4 million in foreclosure, so I’m pretty happy to see that my number generally fits with theirs. Two million already in foreclosure according to LPS, plus 1.53 million over 90 days delinquent… and recognizing that the LPS database covers only 70 percent of market… and I’d say that’s good enough for government work.

The LPS data does show this September as being 4 percent lower than last September, but I’m not at all sure that’s even a statistically significant difference. Likewise, what LPS refers to as foreclosure inventory in September was also down by 4 percent from August, and down just over 7 percent since September of last year… but I’d tell you it’s a meaningless comparison.

THE DEBT SETTLEMENT TRAP:
THE #1 THREAT FACING DEEPLY INDEBTED AMERICANS
America’s most deeply indebted consumers are now falling victim to a major new threat: so-called “debt settlement” schemes that promise to make clients “debt free” in a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, most consumers who pursue debt settlement services find themselves facing not relief but even steeper financial losses

THE DEBT SETTLEMENT TRAP:
THE #1 THREAT FACING
DEEPLY INDEBTED AMERICANS
October 2012
Already struggling with home foreclosures, harsh bank and credit card fees, and other major financial challenges, America’s most deeply indebted consumers are now falling victim to a major new threat: so-called “debt settlement” schemes that promise to make clients “debt free” in a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, most consumers who pursue debt settlement services find themselves facing not relief but even steeper financial losses.
Even the industry acknowledges – though not in its ever-present radio and online advertising–that debt settlement schemes fail to work for about two thirds of clients. Federal and state officials put the debt-settlement success rate even lower – at about one in 10 cases – meaning that the vast majority of unwary and uninformed consumers end up with more red ink, not the promised debt-free outcome.
There is now widespread documentation of the danger that debt settlement schemes pose to consumers. The Better Business Bureau has designated debt settlement as an “inherently problematic business.”1 Similarly, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs called debt settlement “the single greatest consumer fraud of the year.” Across the country, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),2 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 41 state attorneys general,3 consumer and legal services entities,4 and consumer…

And this is all this country appears capable of doing: argue. And wage wars.

Regulators Crash Over Volcker Definitions (WSJ)

The SEC and a trio of banking regulators are butting heads over how to define the buying and selling of securities on behalf of clients, known as market-making, as well as over banks’ ability to invest in outside investment vehicles such as hedge funds, according to officials close to the discussions. Since brokers, which are overseen by the SEC, conduct market-making activities, the SEC is pushing for more influence over the issue, these people said

Corruption appears to be a crime everywhere, except in the good US of A, where it is rewarded, applauded, adulated, revered, etc. That can’t be good… somehow, this country is going to pay so dearly for it, I can’t even start imagining it!

Brazil police arrest ex-chief of bankrupt Cruzeiro do Sul bank

BRASILIA | Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:40am BST

(Reuters) – Police in Sao Paulo said on Monday they had arrested the former head of bankrupt Brazilian lender Banco Cruzeiro do Sul on charges of money laundering and crimes against the country’s financial system and capital markets.

Last month Brazil’s central bank ordered the liquidation of the bank and its subsidiary, Banco Prosper, after seizing the lender on June 4 due to fraud-related losses and after administrators failed to find firm takeover bids.

The liquidation of the bank represents one of the biggest collapses in the country’s banking system in years.

AND

Italian police arrest ex-Finmeccanica executive

By COLLEEN BARRY
AP Business Writer

MILAN — An Italian investigation into alleged corruption in the awarding of international contracts to aerospace and defense giant Finmeccanica led to the arrest Tuesday of the company’s former commercial director and has implicated a former Cabinet minister.

The probe by Naples prosecutors is one of several currently looking into alleged corruption at Finmeccanica, a global player in defense and aeronautics that is 30-percent owned by the government and was once considered a jewel among Italian companies.

Shares in the company dropped 3.8 percent to (EURO)3.89 ($5.05) in trading Tuesday.

Former economic development minister Claudio Scajola is under investigation for alleged corruption in connection with Finmeccanica contracts in Brazil for the supply of Naval frigates, according to Italian media reports

Please Listen Up Everyone … The NAs are Playing Dirty …. They can Not Pawn Off these loans with distorted titles on Another Low Life Scumbag Debt Collector! They have to much to Lose, They have been Forclosing in NAs/Debt Collector Name …. They Are Risking Jail for the Houses!. They still Think They are Above the Law! If You can not Tender … You Need an Attorney Now! And If you can Tender … You Still Need An Attorney! Stand Your Ground! The Last Battle Begins!

“When asked directly if something is your signature, don’t answer “yes” or “no”–all you can say is that “it appears to be.” Lots of things appear to be one thing and are really something else. Not legal advice from one who is not a lawyer…”

I did that with the JDB. The guy had a copy of a fax of a scanned doc, almost illegible and heavily tampered with after the fact. My signature was illegible and I fought for 18 months on the validity of the document, standing, venue (the original contract having been assigned/transferred/conveyed/purchased, etc. provided for arbitration and I questioned JDB on the legitimacy of a lawsuit considering that his position was that he benefited from every condition of the original contract), you name it. I didn’t deny nor admit that it was my signature but insisted on the original document since I really couldn’t see anything. 18 months!

Didn’t help me one bit. The judge found me in contempt for refusing to admit to my signature after demanding to see my driver’s license and comparing both. And I lost the case altogether. Had to close my bank account immediately afterwards (within 2 hours) when I spotted some low life with a tow truck snooping around my garage. And since then, I’ve been closing the door all the time. Hostage in my own home. But JDB will never, ever see one cent from me!

Don – just a few mos ago I witnessed my first case wherein the court ordered the homeowner to escrow payments. Escrow was to be with his att’s trust account (not court escrow). I had never heard of it and was flabbergasted, as was the homeowner. In this particular case, the order seemed punitive because the homeowner was now attempting to deny his signature, which had already been admitted at depo, way I got it. Those pymts put a serious cramp in his ability to pay his attorney, which is likely the desired result. I thought and still think it was bench law, but just now, i can’t support that. Notwithstanding that, it seems to me it might be a case of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: how about making the claimant who has not supported his claim with admissable evidence at the time of the claim put up a bond (if the h.o. doesnt’ get a dismissal or sj)? After all, one is supposed to have his ducks in a row before making a claim.
If a party makes a false claim, it is subject to sanctions, if not damages and attorney fees. (see rule 105, think it is, for one of the court’s wide powers to punish, basically), Making a false claim is an abuse of the judicial process. Imo, so is filing a claim not supported when made. State statute also provides causes of action for damages against wrongful claims (not limited to these issues), and accordingly, the idea of a bankster bond is not so preposterous. Slow their tails down, I’d bet. Bottom line, though, for me at least, is that the order to escrow payments is bench law. I don’t believe it’s within the court’s discretion, esp when a mtn for sj or to dismiss from the bankster has been denied. But, if I’m right about this last part, it would give the bankster who believes he will be successful more motivation to mess around in the case til the cows come home (and drag out dispositive adjudications). Probably not much here is first impression. Seems likely the higher courts have heard this, so there should be case law out there. If not, guess we’d have to make some.

Don, in NY some folks are on year 7. I the lenders had operated as FNM and FRE did prior to 2000, the homeowner (legal owner) would be on the street. I guess when you are making trillions on the defaults you hae to let a couple slide, so as to not interupt the undisclosed!

While you are denying and discovering are you making the monthly mortgage payments to a Court supervised escrow account? Is there a case out there using the deny and discover method in which the Court allowed the homeowner to reside in the property for free and not make any payments?

it is a simple denial’ As to Para. 3 of the Complaint, the Defendant agrees in part, he/she intended to enter a contract with the holder, equitable owner, or investor who provided funding to close the purchase or refinance transaction, which is the basis of this action. The Defendant has not been provided information sufficient to form a belief to the allegation in para 3. and in that respect denies the allegation in the entirety.

@NG – It is frustrating to read a complaint when the first thing a homeowner does is say I got a loan with XYZ on such and such date. I believe, like you, that there’s value in not admitting. Anything not denied is deemed admitted (if one is the defendant, and one WILL be the defendant if one files a complaint and doesn’t rely on case law determing the bankster who filed a NOD is the true plaintiff) under I think it’s Rule 8. The banksters, as defendants, routinely deny based on “lack of information”, and if one thinks a homeowner denying would be absurd, look at some of the stuff banksters deny based on alleged lack of information. (H.O.: “the assignment was ineffective because it was executed by a party with no authority.” Bankster: “denied on insufficient information”)
They follow those denials with every affirmative defense on the books. The homeowner is free to allege many affirmative defenses, but seldom if ever does. Got me why, other than being unlearned. If a court sustains / allows any of the denials or aff defenses, which it must imo when they are not disproved, triable issues of disputed facts remain, so no mtns to dismiss or for sj. No dismissal or sj = case schedule including discovery plan. (“There is no trial without discovery”)
Having said that, equity may demand that a homeowner not get a windfall, but equity does not demand that the wrong party benefit
by that equitable principle, and in that regard, I still allege bench law by some courts. How, for instance, does a court know bankster C
didn’t get wind of the alleged homeowner default at say, MERS’ or some other database and “Hit It”, which as far as I can tell, is entirely possible if not probable. Remember, attorneys and Lord knows whom else get pass codes to all kinds of databases, and this fact is judicially noticeable. And If I got a car loan with Smithie’s, equity does not compel me to pay Jonesy, even if I had admitted default.
I think it’s pretty well etabllished at this date that in order to bring a claim (except maybe AZ under Hogan), the bankster had to have been the party entitled to enforce the note and dot at the time the action (court, NOD, whatever) was instituted. That means the bankster must demonstrate with admissable e v i d e n c e that it was that party at the time of the action. Simply producing a copy of or even an original note endorsed in blank does not evidence that the bankster
was that party when the action was instituted or taken. They will try the aff or declaration to establish this salient and dispositive fact ANYthing but records). If homeowner defense peoples get learned about the FRE’s, those can be shut down. Now add Rule 26 disclosure mandates and we may start getting somewhere. (what we’re aiming for is discovery) Also remember that a bankster’s
rights are derivative of the guy’s before him.

Btw, in this case NG cited, the borrower apparently referred to sec’n
as an “illegal securitization scheme” which separated the note from its collateral instrument and I’ll bet it was without any support for the prop that secn’ is an “illegal scheme” and that it splits the note and dot.
So courts throw out those allegations. Every time. Problem is, if it’s true, most of us, including me, couldn’t properly support the allegation. If we’re gonna use the word “scheme”, we have to step up to the plate and we’re not doing that by and large. If you can’t support something like that (“illegal scheme”), don’t say it. It’s instant karma and your cred is out the window.
Lay opinions. Ask a lawyer.

I like the deny deny deny approach in theory, but I’m not sure it is a magic bullet, either. I think it just makes us look difficult to work with and a little mentally challenged. I don’t think denial of the transaction and your signature automatically makes the judge rule in your favor or even allow discovery. I think the judge will say something like: “Look, it’s common sense that you signed a note and DOT, otherwise you wouldn’t be in the house. You can deny signing all you want, but we know that you did sign A note and A DOT, so I’m going to proceed accordingly. I’m not going to tolerate you denying everything–if there was no signature, etc., why would we even be here.”

When asked directly if something is your signature, don’t answer “yes” or “no”–all you can say is that “it appears to be.” Lots of things appear to be one thing and are really something else. Not legal advice from one who is not a lawyer…

“Concealment of material information can support a fraud claim but a party can only be held liable under such a theory if the party has a duty to disclose or communicate the material information.”

This is my biggest takeaway from this case, NG. Rule 26 and cases relevant thereto should provide the basis for a sustainable allegation that the bankster has a duty to disclose and what. Without reading the whole case, I’m going to presume the homeowner made no such case for a duty to disclose certain material information, although he probably alleged failure to disclose, i.e., he did not articulate the duty. The court is either giving folks a hint or reacting to an unsupported failure to disclose allegation imo.
Interesting observations, jve, including going for damages v the property.

Georgia is a very tough State to litigate in, including at the Federal level, as these cases get handed to some JTR who is 84 years old and whose mind has been in a mental fog for decades. In Georgia, I think you are better off to sue for damages rather than attempt to hold onto the house. If you can get into a State Court, and if you get a Judge who is not kooky, or asleep, then you have a shot for a jury trial for damages, and those damages can be quite a lot more than the house could ever fetch, given how destroyed the Georgia realty market currently is. Damages include trespass, conversion, entry and detainer, unfair trade practices, and deceit. I don’t attempt to plead “fraud” in Georgia especially, and usually nowhere else; too many problems. Southern juries are famous for handing out million-dollar verdicts against “Yankees.”

The other tactic is to sue the banksters in New York, where you have judges who have been badly burned by Wall Street and take a very tough line against the banksters. You do want to be careful in choosing your venue.

If the allagation is not true … deny ..deny ..deny…. Yep! Its all about…. if you dont deny the allegation… its considered true. If you can not admit or deny … dont skip it! You must answer… I neither admit or deny (No proof)…… Yep! Yep! Dont Lie! Sheesh!